Which of the above are you currently using? Which is your preferred version?
Essentially all three are the present form of D&D. (Of course 4e has the rights to the name of the system.)
Also of the non-WOTC two, which do WOTC still stand a chance of profitting from? Both now have campaign settings. While I'm reserving judgement, I really don't know if the Pathfinder or C&C publishers have anything to compete with Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun or even Ravenloft or Eberron. Also consider the Manual of the Planes, all the Arthaus books, etc.
Which of the above are you currently using? Which is your preferred version?
Essentially all three are the present form of D&D. (Of course 4e has the rights to the name of the system.)
Also of the non-WOTC two, which do WOTC still stand a chance of profitting from? Both now have campaign settings. While I'm reserving judgement, I really don't know if the Pathfinder or C&C publishers have anything to compete with Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun or even Ravenloft or Eberron. Also consider the Manual of the Planes, all the Arthaus books, etc.
of those 4 we're currently playing 4th ed and we should be starting pathfinder sometimes either late january or mid february.
i honestly never knew about C&C until several months ago when a guy came into the FLGS looking for it. i checked the books and if i honestly wanted to play retro D&D, i'd play retro D&D as it just felt like another retro clone.
PF is entirely self-contained in it's itself and unlike D&D it has a default setting. unfortunately the core books don't say much about it and it will probably require the purchase of a campaign setting book. dunno much about the setting, Golarion, though. it seems like a more "high-adventure" grayhawk on first glance, but again, the core book is VERY sparce imo. can't comment on C&C.
Or just old-school D&D. Somewhere around here I even have the Red Box. I'm wishing I had my browncover rules, but alas, no. An enterprising Mover one year decided that the box with my gaming stuff was going to be part of a group of "lost" stuff that probably wound up on eBay.
-Sarena
i honestly never knew about C&C until several months ago when a guy came into the FLGS looking for it. i checked the books and if i honestly wanted to play retro D&D, i'd play retro D&D as it just felt like another retro clone.
I give C&C more credit than the rest, possibly just due to it being Gygax's own vision of the direction D&D should have taken after/instead of 3e (entirely non-technical point, but for me it holds weight).
3e with some stream-lining is a worthy project, the SEIGE engine looks pretty solid on first glance. Whether it plays better than AD&D 2nd I'm yet to decide, having not played a full session of C&C yet.
PF is entirely self-contained in it's itself
Can't agree - from the outset they set the condition that everything from PF had to be compatible with 3.5. They mostly achieved this, with a few noteable exceptions. You can use all 3.5 material in a PF game, sometimes with minor conversion but often out of the box.
dunno much about the setting, Golarion, though. it seems like a more "high-adventure" grayhawk on first glance, but again, the core book is VERY sparce imo. can't comment on C&C.
I've read around it a bit. Not bad, reminded me a lot of Forgotten Realms (which is a reccomendation for it imho). With so many D&D developer veterans involved I'd be shocked if it wasn't brilliant. The reviews are very shiny so far. However don't forget its 3.5 backward compatible, the Ravenloft 3e core book I'm using works perfectly with no conversion at all.
Or just old-school D&D. Somewhere around here I even have the Red Box. I'm wishing I had my browncover rules, but alas, no. An enterprising Mover one year decided that the box with my gaming stuff was going to be part of a group of "lost" stuff that probably wound up on eBay.
C&C being Gygax's revamp of D&D contains a lot of OD&D and 1e AD&D mixed up in its core system.
Do the oldest rules still provide an interesting game for people who have experienced 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition?
pathfinder is 3.5 fixed without even touching the largest issues.
Larger issues? Explain.
I feel they did some great additions (ramping up the power of classes and races in some much needed ways).
Pathfinder was a nice idea and I like how Paizo handled it, but I think it just suffered due to having to be compatible with 3.5 (which of course was the target audience, making that shortfall unavoidable). For 3e games, I'd prefer a mix of stuff from various sources, including Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, Book of Iron Might, and MC's Book of Experimental Might.
I haven't actually played a game of Castles and Crusades. I looked at the rules and it was kind of interesting, definitely had a bit of old school feel to it, but I was looking for something that offered more options.
Casters still run out of spells in pathfinder, still using vancian casting, and no class has enough skill points specially fighter. Fighter is still stuck getting feats and static bonuses rather than new attacks and options so its still boring to play. Rogue sneak attack is still worthless against large segments of monsters, druids still have to wait too long for core features like wild shape making early levels painful. In short it did not change enough of the game for my tastes. To me it feels more like 3.55 than 3.75. Making it backwards compatible with 3.5 to my mind is a mistake.
I feel they got a good balance, but I rarely run campaigns below 5th level anymore.
Playing 4e Ravenloft would be a challenge for any DM. Low-level characters are too powerful, most Ravenloft campaigns run below 10th level in 2e and 3e and the feeling of mortality is ever present.
I do like 4e though. It has a MMORPG feel in places (health surges, I mean seriously lol). I think Pathfinder could have gone further in its alterations without filling the world with an endless supply of almighty power lords. I'm luke-warm on 4e's roles in combat (leader, defender etc). The same class should be able to function more diversely than that. I think some elements of 4e (and 2e while we're at it) could and should be grafted into future editions of PF if they happen, such as the paragon paths to discourage the hideous monstrosity that is prestiege classes. The skills and feats system of 3e still has me enamoured (for me it was the largest improvement on 2e and PF has done a good job with it). As D&D systems that currently exist go I give PF the gold medal.
The same goes for 3.5 e.
Does wonders for the Dming Nightmares that way.
Star Wars Saga is what 3e should have been. Much better balanced, much cleaner rules, and functions more or less correctly with no house ruling required.
That being said I'm a 4e guy. Good example of what a gritty 4e game would be like? Dragon Age origins.
I don't run my games gritty typically though. Half the time Tech is blended in with Magic.
Too many balance problems come with them and I feel it defeats the type of Class system that D&D uses.
D&D uses the "well if it's not covered by a little bit of dabbling in another class, it's probably it's own class" They reinforce this of course as it's the best way to sell more material by releasing new classes which cover other archetypes, and they balance the game accordingly around that.
Then they went and shot themselves in the foot with Hybrid classing. I'm sorry, if you are a Gish you're just going to be either a Warlord Wizard multiclass, or a Swordmage. No hybriding required.
Free multiclassing works best when there is few classes which have large ability/talent pools *See Star Wars Saga*. Not when the system is geared around many classes, with specialized roles.
See Avenger/Swordmage hybrids.... for balance shenanigans.
But they're fun. Like, really fun. One of my biggest issues with 4e is the straight jacket feel of the classes. I feel stuck with a character built with one class. It's boring to me. Hybrid lets you really play with the game and move out of these constricting classes. Now I have a character that's actually capable of doing important stuff (aside from basic attacks or At-Wills that qualify as basic attacks) in melee and with spells from close or deep. To me, that's a complete character. One that can stand and trade if needed or blast from away if the situation calls for it. And I'm able to help my entire group by giving them a massive Init bonus, saves, healing or simply by drawing fire. I just happen to prefer characters that work like this. I don't feel cookie cutter when I play V. That's not something I could say when playing a single class. Even with all of the new build options, a path is a path. And that's not for me.
I felt that hybrid did not give me enough of either class to make it worth it really. But thats just me I generally prefer single class characters, heck in 3.5 Id almost never prestidge class, though i do have a multi classed barbarian/ranger that will probably take a ranger paragon path, and dark wanderer epic destiny.
I felt that hybrid did not give me enough of either class to make it worth it really. But thats just me I generally prefer single class characters, heck in 3.5 Id almost never prestidge class, though i do have a multi classed barbarian/ranger that will probably take a ranger paragon path, and dark wanderer epic destiny.
Yeah, it's definitely a personal thing. I also discovered that you have to plan a bit more with Hybrid stuff. I had a Hybrid FighterLord that was damn near unkillable. Unfortunately, his Defenses weren't great, he had no real range and he didn't do much in the way of damage. In other words, he wasn't very fun to play. IMO he was more fun than a single class character, but it just didn't work like I had hoped. Maybe I'll try a rebuild one day. ;)
Oddly enough, in 3.5 I played many classes right from level one to twenty and never did too much with Prestige Classes. If I did PC, I'd only take one. Guess I'm a sucker for capstones.
For whatever reason, I've completely changed with 4e and really enjoy mish-mash characters more. I don't care, though, cuz I'm havin' fun. 
Oddly enough, in 3.5 I played many classes right from level one to twenty and never did too much with Prestige Classes. If I did PC, I'd only take one. Guess I'm a sucker for capstones.
There's the important bit. As long as you're havin' fun and the DM is amenable, have at it
Myself, I don't much care for the Hybrids. They strike me as unnecessary in a system as varied as the current one is. Hybrid looked to much like the 3.5 Gestalt rules, I think. On the subject of 3.5, I'm perfectly happy to be rid of the encumberance. Watching a guy walk into the FLGS carrying a bag that weighed more than he did... As a Player. He had references on his sheet spread across more than fifty books. That still gives me the shudders.
But my pure, refined hatred in 3.x was reserved for "Prestige Classes." Everyone thought they were the ultimate in cool, especially if you could use one to qualify for six others. It looked insane whaen I saw it the first time around, and it was all downhill from there. Does anyone have an accurate count of how many Prestige Classes were eventually released across every licensed book?
My money is on more than two thousand, and probably closer to 5 to 10k. DMG 3.0 was ten, I want to say. DMG 3.5 doubled that readily. Seems like every book after that produced even one feat had a Prestige Class of three that required it. My brother-in-law once considered a 3.5 build that required three classes to even get the prestige Class he wanted (before you ask, no, I don't remember which one it was)... I do recall it provided immediate relief from the Multiclass XP Penalty, as a Class Feature.
-Sarena
Myself, I don't much care for the Hybrids. They strike me as unnecessary in a system as varied as the current one is. Hybrid looked to much like the 3.5 Gestalt rules, I think.
-Sarena
To me, the classes as-is aren't very varied. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of variety - to a point. If you're Fighter Build X, when you level, you look for powers that synergize with the Build X benefits. That, effectively, restricts you somewhat. Hybrid feels free-er, I guess. I don't care so much about what will and won't jive with my Build perfectly. Cuz I have more places to pick from. I guess it's largely a feel thing. When I play a single class, I feel stuck with a build plan. When I play a Hybrid, I feel like I have more choice. That and I don't look like everybody else playing Class X Build Y. ;) Plus for whatever reason, most of my character concepts just float to a Hybrid idea more often than not. Oh, I also like shattering 'Roles' - not that you can't do that with a single class, of course, it just feels easier with Hybrid to me.
Hybrid's not too much like Gestalt, actually. The only similarity is that you get stuff from two classes. You don't, however, get the best. For example, my Hybrid WizLord did not get the Implement Mastery feature of the Wizard class, the choice between Tactical and Inspiring Warlord, the better armor and weapons of the Warlord, etc. You can take a feat to choose one of these (which I did) but you can only take it once. Once you hit Paragon tier, you may choose to forgo choosing an actual PP and instead choose to Paragon Hybrid. If you do, you get this feat again for free. That gives you two class features at level 11. Sounds powerful, but you miss out on any PP goodies and PP specific powers. And a crapton of the features you're allowed to select are also significantly modified. For example, I can only use Inspiring Word 1/Encounter no matter my level. A Hybrid Fighter/X can only Mark with Fighter powers. Stuff like that. And your HP are not taken from the better class, either. Each Hybrid compatible class has a specific HP value associated with it. You add the two together and drop any extra .5s. Yes, drop, not round up. I get 5 HP a level. You also need to choose carefully as you'll need two main stats at least. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Hybrid is nowhere near as powerful as Gestalt and that there are sacrifices involved with any gains. You can't just Hybrid anything cuz it very well may not work. At all. It adds a fun level of complexity to the build game and can net some fairly impressive results or fail spectacularly. Yay system mastery.
Really, it's a matter of experimentation for me. And that's why I enjoy it.None of the above.
We play games by Iron Crown Enterprises.
We've played on Cyradon, from Gryphon World.... good times with the HARP system.
Nowadays we play 4th, suits our needs.
heh, I hate the Hybrid rules.
Too many balance problems come with them and I feel it defeats the type of Class system that D&D uses.
D&D uses the "well if it's not covered by a little bit of dabbling in another class, it's probably it's own class" They reinforce this of course as it's the best way to sell more material by releasing new classes which cover other archetypes, and they balance the game accordingly around that.
Then they went and shot themselves in the foot with Hybrid classing. I'm sorry, if you are a Gish you're just going to be either a Warlord Wizard multiclass, or a Swordmage. No hybriding required.
Free multiclassing works best when there is few classes which have large ability/talent pools *See Star Wars Saga*. Not when the system is geared around many classes, with specialized roles.
See Avenger/Swordmage hybrids.... for balance shenanigans.
I agree that hybrid rules will be our first houserule in 4th edition.
Nothing before seemed to warrant the houserule when we were using the appropriate updates.
Sorry for the derail carry on ;)
Hybrid's not too much like Gestalt, actually. The only similarity is that you get stuff from two classes. You don't, however, get the best. For example, my Hybrid WizLord did not get the Implement Mastery feature of the Wizard class, the choice between Tactical and Inspiring Warlord, the better armor and weapons of the Warlord, etc. You can take a feat to choose one of these (which I did) but you can only take it once. Once you hit Paragon tier, you may choose to forgo choosing an actual PP and instead choose to Paragon Hybrid. If you do, you get this feat again for free. That gives you two class features at level 11. Sounds powerful, but you miss out on any PP goodies and PP specific powers. And a crapton of the features you're allowed to select are also significantly modified. For example, I can only use Inspiring Word 1/Encounter no matter my level. A Hybrid Fighter/X can only Mark with Fighter powers. Stuff like that. And your HP are not taken from the better class, either. Each Hybrid compatible class has a specific HP value associated with it. You add the two together and drop any extra .5s. Yes, drop, not round up. I get 5 HP a level. You also need to choose carefully as you'll need two main stats at least. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Hybrid is nowhere near as powerful as Gestalt and that there are sacrifices involved with any gains. You can't just Hybrid anything cuz it very well may not work. At all. It adds a fun level of complexity to the build game and can net some fairly impressive results or fail spectacularly. Yay system mastery.
I'll have to agree with Z_B on this one. even though I have not played a hybrid as of yet I have looked at the mechanics a bit. With a gestalt you're basically getting the best of both worlds. With the 4e hybrid you're getting an average of the two. Or rather it's kinda like the two classes are cut in two and then put together to form a whole rather than making a character that is equal to two whole characters.
Two of our (D&D) games are 3.5, two are 4e, one started as 3.5 & jumped to Pathfinder.
No one has yet run a C&C based game - though one of the guys does have it.
And one of the 4e games might get converted back to AD&D1e come Jan.
the prestige class index lists 782 prestige classes in 3rd ed.
That is on top of the 175 Classes listed in the 3.5 Character Class Index.
If we also want to get all gritty though we can look at the Feat Index that has 3,304 feats from 3.5.
um ok that is wow. that is more combinations being released than can really be reasonably tried. That just seems mind boggling crazy.
The 4e skills/feats system looks a little duller than the original 3e. I agree with whoever claimed that all feats should be convertable into a modifier mechanically. This has mostly been achieved in 4e and Pathfinder.
the prestige class index lists 782 prestige classes in 3rd ed.
The problem being what they contain. Why would anyone play a loremaster? You'd be significantly better off continuing to take arcane class levels. Why be a purple knight instead of taking levels as a fighter or ranger? These classes add flavour not power play, but that's all they seem to do, add titles.
the prestige class index lists 782 prestige classes in 3rd ed.
That is on top of the 175 Classes listed in the 3.5 Character Class Index.
If we also want to get all gritty though we can look at the Feat Index that has 3,304 feats from 3.5.
um ok that is wow. that is more combinations being released than can really be reasonably tried. That just seems mind boggling crazy.
Its awesome!
However a look at that list of base classes isn't quite as cool as it sounds. Almost all of them are variations of a single class released in different books (check out the 15 or so rangers, monks, etc). Very little unique unfortunately. I'm in favour of absurd numbers of character classes in D&D, its just fun.
The problem being what they contain. Why would anyone play a loremaster? You'd be significantly better off continuing to take arcane class levels. Why be a purple knight instead of taking levels as a fighter or ranger? These classes add flavour not power play, but that's all they seem to do, add titles.
Why play something like a loremaster? Well to break the game for one and to break it outside of combat. Sure arcane classes could add more in combat strength but if a loremaster is played correctly then such strength really is not needed. To tell you the truth. From a DM standpoint I probably wouldn't let a mechanics optimizer and skilled roleplayer play a loremaster. With a few of the people I've gamed with a class like the loremaster is a quick way to ruin the DM's whole campaign with knowledge skills and divinations as well as to circumvent much of the worked upon campaign. In truth I would put something like a loremaster as one of the better prestige classes, if handled properly, and would be a quick way to destroy a campaign and proceed directly to the finish. For the most part a well made and high powered loremaster can probably get their hands on dang near any info they need. There is basically nothing one could end up hiding from them. With having such access to knowledge one can always go into a situation completely prepared or basically just know what the DM has instore. In some cases to keep the campaign going the DM would have to basically denie the class most of it's powers. In my opinion this prestige class is better than straight arcane and can break the game in ways that some of the most messed up combat combat combos can't imagine to compare to. I'm talking about a character concept that would be on their path to gaining Vecna like knowledge.
I'd suggest not seeing a class as weak because it is not that good at roasting an ambushing goblin. The class might be in that it can keep you from ever walking into the ambush.
You may not see power in prestige classes but to tell you the truth the most game breaking powerful characters I've seen have used prestige classes and it was benefits from prestige classes that helped make such things possible. you may not see strength in 3.5 prestige classes but many of the munchkins that I've know have not seen much reason to take any core class beyond about lvl 3 to 5 if you wanted to make a character that was as optimized as possible for their character concept. As far as they, nad I, have seen it is that it is better to use prestige classes than it is to not use them (even though a few core classes in 3.5 are OP in their own right).
The problem being what they contain. Why would anyone play a loremaster? You'd be significantly better off continuing to take arcane class levels. Why be a purple knight instead of taking levels as a fighter or ranger? These classes add flavour not power play, but that's all they seem to do, add titles.
Why play something like a loremaster? Well to break the game for one and to break it outside of combat. Sure arcane classes could add more in combat strength but if a loremaster is played correctly then such strength really is not needed. To tell you the truth. From a DM standpoint I probably wouldn't let a mechanics optimizer and skilled roleplayer play a loremaster. With a few of the people I've gamed with a class like the loremaster is a quick way to ruin the DM's whole campaign with knowledge skills and divinations as well as to circumvent much of the worked upon campaign. In truth I would put something like a loremaster as one of the better prestige classes, if handled properly, and would be a quick way to destroy a campaign and proceed directly to the finish. For the most part a well made and high powered loremaster can probably get their hands on dang near any info they need. There is basically nothing one could end up hiding from them. With having such access to knowledge one can always go into a situation completely prepared or basically just know what the DM has instore. In some cases to keep the campaign going the DM would have to basically denie the class most of it's powers. In my opinion this prestige class is better than straight arcane and can break the game in ways that some of the most messed up combat combat combos can't imagine to compare to. I'm talking about a character concept that would be on their path to gaining Vecna like knowledge.
I'd suggest not seeing a class as weak because it is not that good at roasting an ambushing goblin. The class might be in that it can keep you from ever walking into the ambush.
You may not see power in prestige classes but to tell you the truth the most game breaking powerful characters I've seen have used prestige classes and it was benefits from prestige classes that helped make such things possible. you may not see strength in 3.5 prestige classes but many of the munchkins that I've know have not seen much reason to take any core class beyond about lvl 3 to 5 if you wanted to make a character that was as optimized as possible for their character concept. As far as they, nad I, have seen it is that it is better to use prestige classes than it is to not use them (even though a few core classes in 3.5 are OP in their own right).
Pfft you can make a broken class just using core Wizard or Druid. Perstige classes just have a bad rep, and along with melee never getting nice. As for the OP I would have to say PF of the ones listed then again I hate 4e... But hey this board will be bias towards 4e >.>...
The problem being what they contain. Why would anyone play a loremaster?
More skills, access to UMD, the equivalent of bardic knowledge, legend lore/analyze dweomer and identify (for free), and the possibility for a bonus to saves, attack, and AC. All for the cost of your familiar not progressing, and, in the case of wizards, missing out on two bonus feats.
Seems fair to me.
Why play something like a loremaster? Well to break the game for one and to break it outside of combat. Sure arcane classes could add more in combat strength but if a loremaster is played correctly then such strength really is not needed. To tell you the truth. From a DM standpoint I probably wouldn't let a mechanics optimizer and skilled roleplayer play a loremaster. With a few of the people I've gamed with a class like the loremaster is a quick way to ruin the DM's whole campaign with knowledge skills and divinations as well as to circumvent much of the worked upon campaign. In truth I would put something like a loremaster as one of the better prestige classes, if handled properly, and would be a quick way to destroy a campaign and proceed directly to the finish. For the most part a well made and high powered loremaster can probably get their hands on dang near any info they need. There is basically nothing one could end up hiding from them. With having such access to knowledge one can always go into a situation completely prepared or basically just know what the DM has instore. In some cases to keep the campaign going the DM would have to basically denie the class most of it's powers. In my opinion this prestige class is better than straight arcane and can break the game in ways that some of the most messed up combat combat combos can't imagine to compare to. I'm talking about a character concept that would be on their path to gaining Vecna like knowledge.
Hmm, that's a well played loremaster. A lot of the above could be achieved by a bard, but if you're right then the class makes more sense than it did to me on first reading through the DMG.
I'd suggest not seeing a class as weak because it is not that good at roasting an ambushing goblin. The class might be in that it can keep you from ever walking into the ambush.
An unfair assumption - my preferred class for three editions of D&D has been the rogue/thief for its abilities outside of combat. Looking through presitege classes I still find so little that I would want to use as a player that I might not get just as easily in one of the PHB base classes.
I like the 4e paragon paths for not requiring a character to join a guild of rune masters or a heirophant to advance in special options.
I do like 4e though. It has a MMORPG feel in places (health surges, I mean seriously lol).
Umm... How are Healing Surges similar to something in MMORPGs at all?
I do like 4e though. It has a MMORPG feel in places (health surges, I mean seriously lol).
Umm... How are Healing Surges similar to something in MMORPGs at all?
Because they aren't in MMORPGs?
4E makes DMing much easier, and since (as I already said) I often am the one running things, it's gonna be 4E. With luck, I'll be able to educate my wife a little more on how to design/run 4E adventures and she can give me the occasional break in the upcoming campaign that I'll be running. That would certainly be fun. She has less time than I do currently, so if I can manage to break down the basics of adventure design, she can have loads of fun with her soap-opera plots and I can have fun playing.
I have been looking back at 2E and 1E and Basic recently. I'd run Basic again, because it's so bare-bones it leaves lots of room for crazy improvisation and just going with what makes sense because there just ain't no rules for it. I like that creativity, and it's a little missing from 4E. Rather, it's displaced in 4E due to the highly structured rules... the creative opportunities lie elsewhere, but I enjoy the creative opportunities of previous editions too. 3.x is actually rapidly becoming my least favourite edition, even though it was the edition that brought be back after I became frustrated with 2E. I'd play 2E again before I'd play 3.x, though a modified version of Basic is what I'd play as a close second to 4E.
I do like 4e though. It has a MMORPG feel in places (health surges, I mean seriously lol).
Umm... How are Healing Surges similar to something in MMORPGs at all?
Consider healing options in MMORPG's (or your average console JRPG). Most characters have some similar mechanic for healing during combat. Its a far cry from the D&D of leaving the dungeon to rest for a few days. Realism has never been a hallmark of D&D but the health surges are a very arcadey step for D&D to take.
In the arcade games you pick up healing potions or heal packs or replenish your health. Or wait, maybe that was 3.5
In the movies, the hero is breathing hard and scraped up after his fight with the bad guys but appears fine in the next scene.
Consider healing options in MMORPG's (or your average console JRPG). Most characters have some similar mechanic for healing during combat. Its a far cry from the D&D of leaving the dungeon to rest for a few days.
No, they don't. In most MMORPGs, JRPGs, and Western RPGs, healing is delivered through discreet abilities with no relation to the character being healed. Usually, you will, for example, use a Cure spell. This spell will have a set amount of health that it will heal, regardless of who it is cast on.
Sort of like... the method of healing used in every edition of D&D OTHER THAN 4E to date.
Healing Surges are a rather unique, in my opinion, mechanic. They always heal a set percentage of the character's health (25%), regardless of what healing ability caused it to be spent. As well, unlike in previous D&D editions or most videogames, Healing Surges limit how many times a character can be healed in a day, setting up a sort of "fatigue limit" after which healing is nearly impossible. This differs from the method used in previous D&D editions and most videogames, where you can heal endlessly in a day as long as you cna find a source of healing.
On the topic of natural healing, yes, it is handled drasticly differently than previous editions. In 4E, a full nights rest equals full HP the next day (as well as full healing surges), unlike the slow healing of often single-digit hitpoint totals from a rest in previous editions. This method mirrors how resting usually works in videogames, IE stay at the inn, wake up refreshed. The choice was likely made for two reasons: Firstly, if characters are expected to fight a certain caliber of encounters in a day, then they should be expected to be at full strength at the start of it, and secondly, most players will probably find this less of a headache than needing to spend an arbitrary number of days resting after any significant challange.
However, this has nothing at all to do with the Healing Surge mechanic. At the same time, yes, clear parallels can be observed between how resting for the night is handled in 4E and most videogames. I'd argue that it is a change for the better, but that's neither here nor there. Things can be learned from other media. It's foolish to not concider that a winning formula should be abandoned simply because someone else has already done it.
Finally, the usual idea behind the "Healing Surges equals MMORPG healing" argument is related to how in MMORPGs, the character usually regenerates health slowly over time. This is uaully related to Healing Surges in the way that a short rest may be used to heal. IMHO, it's still much different, as you can't simply rest after EVERY enconter and go all day. Healing Surges run out.
Realism has never been a hallmark of D&D but the health surges are a very arcadey step for D&D to take.
First it was MMORPGs, now it's arcade games? Make up your mind.
Joking aside, no. No arcade game I have ever encountered used a system where character can, a limited number of times per "day" (likely this would be represented by stages), heal themselves while resting, or from certain abilities that also drain this LIMITED RESOURCE. Most of them use the tried and true previous-E D&D method of "If you've got healing, it works, no exception, and always heals a fixed amount regardless of character attributes".
On the original topic, Pathfinder.
It seems clearly thought out, and is easy to get more stuff for. And it isn't 4th Edition.
If ya ain't playin' 4e then ya ain't playin' it right ;)
Care to settle this tthe old fashoned way, eh, Emperor?
If ya ain't playin' 4e then ya ain't playin' it right ;)
Care to settle this tthe old fashoned way, eh, Emperor?
No I do not wish to circle jerk with a bunch of dudes. There very little rp I did was enough of me seeing BoE and pk pretending to be women.
Point.
On the original topic, Pathfinder
I like how they handled monsters as player characters.
other than that... Eh, it's pretty much 3E with new classes.
On the original topic, Pathfinder.
It seems clearly thought out, and is easy to get more stuff for. And it isn't 4th Edition.
I'm sold on that alone...
No, it's far worse.
It's 3e. All over again.
It's as badly balanced if not worse. *They did buff the non casters. But then promptly defeated the point, by buffing casters with interest. * Fighters still run around going "I BAB YOU!".. Next round "I BAB YOU!"
There is still no actual mechanical reason to have fighters as they have no mark mechanic, or similar thing. *IIRC*
Not worth it. And frankly it is only compatable with the 3.crap 5 rules in that they both have BAB, Saving throws, Same spell selection and feats. The classes in of themselves have changed enough that, you couldn't have a Phb fighter, in the same group as a Pathfinder fighter, and so forth.
It's still so stupidly over the top rife with Caster Power that you can't run anything gritty, ala DragonAge like you can with 4e, without heavy house ruling. The rules are -still- nightmarishly complex, reuse of old Grapple rules, among many others. It doesn't do Big Damn Heroes well either because half the classes are still full of utter Failure, and still perform more like Adam West Robin, in the same game where you can be Superman.
Basically it's a lie to sell to H4ters that fails even in it's design concept of being 3.5 compatible. Miserably. As a game system, it's not the worst thing out there. (F.A.T.A.L does take top honors after all) However, it is so far from the top that I can't believe that anyone would seriously consider this, with systems like 4e, Savage Worlds*, Star Wars Saga, 7th Sea (Pre d20), Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying, Exalted, Hunter/nWoD, Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader or Eclipsed Phase out there.
*Savage Worlds is the base system, settings and specialization of the awesomely simple system that are particularly worthy of note as follows Deadlands, Necessary Evil.
On the original topic, Pathfinder.
It seems clearly thought out, and is easy to get more stuff for. And it isn't 4th Edition.
I'm sold on that alone...
No, it's far worse.
It's 3e. All over again.
It's as badly balanced if not worse. *They did buff the non casters. But then promptly defeated the point, by buffing casters with interest. * Fighters still run around going "I BAB YOU!".. Next round "I BAB YOU!"
There is still no actual mechanical reason to have fighters as they have no mark mechanic, or similar thing. *IIRC*
Not worth it. And frankly it is only compatable with the 3.crap 5 rules in that they both have BAB, Saving throws, Same spell selection and feats. The classes in of themselves have changed enough that, you couldn't have a Phb fighter, in the same group as a Pathfinder fighter, and so forth.
It's still so stupidly over the top rife with Caster Power that you can't run anything gritty, ala DragonAge like you can with 4e, without heavy house ruling. The rules are -still- nightmarishly complex, reuse of old Grapple rules, among many others. It doesn't do Big Damn Heroes well either because half the classes are still full of utter Failure, and still perform more like Adam West Robin, in the same game where you can be Superman.
Basically it's a lie to sell to H4ters that fails even in it's design concept of being 3.5 compatible. Miserably. As a game system, it's not the worst thing out there. (F.A.T.A.L does take top honors after all) However, it is so far from the top that I can't believe that anyone would seriously consider this, with systems like 4e, Savage Worlds*, Star Wars Saga, 7th Sea (Pre d20), Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying, Exalted, Hunter/nWoD, Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader or Eclipsed Phase out there.
*Savage Worlds is the base system, settings and specialization of the awesomely simple system that are particularly worthy of note as follows Deadlands, Necessary Evil.
I pretty much agree with this. Fighters are stuck getting static bonuses and are still very boring to play. Rogues still can't sneak attack over half the monsters in the game. They did make bards better though thats the only thing they did right in pathfinder. Anyway yeah its probably the worsed rpg that you will find in stores. I'd love to play exalted, rogue trader, dark heresey or New world of darkness specially changeling. Saga not so much but then still feels too much like starwars 3.5. Never seen savage worlds or warhammer fantasy rpg. Another good one would be the current edition of Legend of The Five Rings. The fluff and crunch are closley intertwined, but it fits the flavour of the game very well and looks like a decent system that id love to try out.